Are progressives who say that homosexuality is not real or a redundant conceptualisation homophobic? If so why are they not called out for their homophobia?

I fail to see how anyone who holds views like this can be seen to be an ally, nor people who act as apologists for such thinking.

When Polish seemingly has a lot in common with Ukrainian and Belarusian. Is it correct that according to some criteria it’s closer to them than to Czech for example? And would this impact the west/east categories?

I noticed that in English people say “What’s on your mind?” “I have something on my mind.” etc. And in German, similarly, people say “Was haben Sie auf dem Herzen?” to show concerns. In Chinese, however, we use “in” in both cases. At first I was puzzled by the phenomenon since a thought/idea is essentially something IN someone’s head, or brain. Then I checked some corpora and found that in most examples, something ON someone’s mind is a trouble, concern, or something has to be dealt with. Does this intuitive thought coincide with your mind corpus? I assumed it was true, and, regarding the image of mind, I speculated that a mind is conceived as a container (more likely a sphere?) in which one can put in thoughts and ideas as I can also see people use “in my mind”, “Are you out of your mind?” etc. And something troublesome is conceptualised as a thing (Trajector) pressing on one’s mind (Landmark) structured by a vertical space domain. Would you agree with me?

P.S. I am collecting more data from English and German. If you happen to know both of these languages, I’d appreciate some help :)

I’m currently writing an essay on whether or not phenomenology ought to play a role in our conceptualisation of mental illness. The position I’m gravitating toward is similar to that of Havi Carel who holds that phenomenology ought to augment the current medical model (as opposed to a more radical form which might seek to replace it) and that the consequence of this would be a better physician-patient relation thus, better quality of care (patient is not reduced to their biological body). The part I’m finding a little difficult to understand is why phenomenology in this respect is held as a controversial view? Incorporating an understanding of subjective experience and adopting a more humanistic approach for the treatment of mental illness seems, to me at least, like an integral part of diagnosis and providing adequate care. Perhaps it is that there are alternatives which are better suited to this which I have not considered? I have to admit I feel a little out of my depth in this particular area of study so apologies if I’ve omitted any important information, any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

( Carel, H. Can I Be Ill and Happy?. Philosophia 35, 95–110 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-007-9085-5 )

Hello,

I have a rather large program I am working on, and I am stuck at the logic behind the central function of it.

A bit of background: Assume you have two arrays, containing window title conditions, separated into whitelist/blacklist, and website/program.

• That is, we have two arrays, and depending on a substring in each entry of each array, those can be split up separately as well into programs and websites.

We have three modes under which the program can run, as outlined below:

A. Whitelist only:

1. criteria-entry: program:: if the current window title is a program (that is, it is not considered a browser by matching a set of conditions on its ahk_class and ahk_exe), and that programs' title does NOT match any program-criteria in "whitelist", close that window. If it is a browser, it is not supposed to be closed, even if the window name does not match.
2. criteria entry: website:: if the current window is a website, and either the title of that website does not match the criteria, or it does BUT the current URL does not match the criteria's URL (apply to all criteria that exist in "whitelist"), → close that window.

B. BlackList only:

1. criteria-entry: program:: if the current window title is a program and matches any entry of "blacklist", close the window.
2. criteria entry: website:: if the current window is a website, and the website URL matches the criteria's url, close the window.

For "BlackList only"-mode, all website criteria must be entered with a url as precaution.

These two are mostly finished, and don't give me too much headaches. I think WhiteList only has a small bug I need to track down, but that isn't the problem.

Now comes the complicated part I have been breaking my head over for the past idk-how-but-way-too-many hours:

And shit becomes complicated. Mostly because I can't figure out the framework myself. Those are 2*(2^2) combinations only, but my head's burning.

C. WhiteList and blacklist:

Mode C.1 Whitelist trumps blacklist:

1. criteria-entry: program: if either only whitelist, or whitelist and blacklist match the programs title, do NOT close the window; if only blacklist matches, DO close the window.

2.1 criteria entry: website: url specified (whIte only):

• if the current website matches whitelist in name and url, and blacklist in name (because we didn't specify a url here), the tabis not closed.

• If the window only matches blacklist (regardless of url, because we did not specify tha

I yearn for a twin flame connection whether it be platonic or romantic or beyond by conceptualisation. I feel I yearn it a lot, one of the reasons being that I want to spend time together physically in this life. Yet I know we are connected through many realms. One reason I yearn for this connection is that a part of me wants to meet…me? Do I yearn for a part of me that is in a physical body to learn to understand, nurture & love unconditionally. I must do this work for myself in this body & energetically connect to spread that love I have for myself so that other part can heal & grow too in that other body. May we one day meet again, maybe in many lifetimes to come, we will reunite.

Disclaimer: it’s pointless if your goal is to change the mind of the person you are debating. There might be merit in debate if you have different motives

Person A is destitute and unemployed with minimal skills and very little future prospects. Person B comes along and says “I will pay you $5 an hour to do some menial chores each day such as clean my car, mow the lawn etc”

The Capitalist Response: “this is an example of a mutually beneficial trade. Person A values $5 an hour more than he values the time and energy he will place into the job he has been tasked with, and at the end of the trade he will have money to buy food and water to sustain himself. Person B can put his time and energy to greater use in pursuing his own self-interest in other activities other than chores, and as such values $5 an hour less than he values that time and energy”.

The Socialist Response: “this is an example of exploitation. Person A’s disadvantaged situation is being taken advantage of by Person B since he is paying him a comparatively low wage in exchange for his labor and not allowing him to receive the full value of it. This kind of association should be deemed illegitimate”

This small example demonstrates how differently capitalists and socialists view human interaction and trade. A capitalist such as myself cannot see how one could possibly want to ban this sort of association while simultaneously wishing to help the impoverished class, while socialists cannot see how you could want to allow this kind of association while simultaneously wishing to help the impoverished class.

TL;DR debating in this subreddit and other forums like this with the goal of changing minds or having your mind changed is completely pointless since the gulf between the world views of socialists and capitalists is far too vast to be dealt with in any meaningful way so as to change the mind of someone else through argumentation

The Rajmata had been growing busier, busier than it had ever been before. The swollen court of the Samraj buzzed with activity as Yati, Bhattaraka, and Mahatmas that advised the advisers swarmed to and from its chambers like ants from a nest. This was essential, the administration of the Arihant Raj was no small undertaking, and it's chief decision maker - the Samraj - was a man whose time was in growing demand.

A demand that occluded over occasion, and thought. A demand that stifled the perspective from which he could look upon life. A demand that denied him time to look after his own body - it's own degradation a sacrifice for his state. A demand that would be his burden no-longer.

Dāna was the idea of Charity, and Generosity that saw Rajakumara Chaudhary attempt to alleviate his Father's time. His own experience of administration had shown the Rajmata of his skill as an administrator, and his familial connect to the Samraj would not cease - nor would communications between them. On the matters of spiritual guidance - the Samraj would still be of primary consultation, for he would still hold utmost authority. As would he hold a Veto over the powers of his Son, and the responsibility to remove the Rajakumara from the Rajmata should he be shown inadequate.

This announcement came as somewhat of a shock to the oblivious of the Rajmata, who had not seen the Rajakumara's choice of the Sthaniyamata as an omen of the changing of tides. What did however come as a shock was the strict privacy now afforded to the Samraj - he would remain within his own chambers of the Palitana Temple Complex, and remain in isolation from all but his direct family, and the four Acharya of the major Jain sects.

The position of his Son, would be the Rajakumara no-longer. Instead, it was planned, he would be elevated to the new position of Raji Emperor in reflection of the people of the Arihant Raj - in a great celebratory coronation.

It was a concept noticeable even to the foreigners of the Harshalite Empire that the identity of those within Arihant Raj was

How would you approach these lyrics when you are trying to choreograph a piece?

"The hypocrite he lies to me
And sweeps up on my history
But he's just gonna die with me
His body burning in my sea "

" A call to arms is in my chest
But I think I'll give life a rest
My final act is just this jest
A finger laid across your breast
And now we're young and moving fast
Said the captain to the mast
Beneath the ocean laid it's trap
But they just had to sail and laugh "

I’ve been a long-term patient with various diagnoses, mostly of MDD and a PD. Recently, all those diagnoses have been questioned as my doctor is not sure whether those labels were correct. When I insisted on a diagnosis, I was asked why a label is so important to me.

I’m being driven crazy. I have been in treatment for almost a decade and I still have no idea what is wrong with me. If I don’t know what is wrong with me, how am I supposed to help myself?

What I need is a case conceptualization. I need someone to map out what my issues are, what led to what, and why I am the way I am, and what the treatment plan is. The reality is that even when I did have a diagnosis, it didn’t help much because all a diagnosis does is it narrows the possibilities of what could be wrong — it doesn’t tell you what your issues are exactly.

Is it fair for me to ask my doc to give me a case conceptualization (is that even the right word?).

Welcome to the second log for my ongoing project of an Indivisible Tabletop Roleplaying Game. This log focuses on the mechanics of one of the more exciting aspect of the system: the combat. The explanation is mostly conceptual for this post, but in future posts I will present actual mechanics (and maybe actual play!).

The Design Philosophy

Most RPGs tend to veer towards being simulationist, that is, it tries to mimic real life: fast people act first, and slow people act later (according to initiative), attacks are mostly separate from each other, etc.. I want to go in the opposite direction. I want to instead capture the feel of the combat in the videogame without outright copying it. While I could have easily make the Player Characters slot into the four positions like in the videogame, I think it is severely limiting and I would rather use a map or grid-based system where more interesting strategies and tactics can emerge. This is my design statement (especially regarding combat) before I proceeded with the mechanics design:

>“Overcome Together”. These words are printed on the back of the plastic sleeve on the Collector’s Edition of the game. These words are also the core of the design process. In Indivisible Tabletop Roleplaying Game, characters may have different backgrounds, different goals (which sometimes clash with other party members) but in the end they must overcome the obstacles together. As such, I go into the designing process making sure that players must rely on each other to solve problems and each and every mechanic must work towards that. No class or character can be completely self-sufficient, either in combat, social setting, etc.
>
>In combat, I want the players to be able to execute satisfying combos. This can be a setup from a character followed by other characters until a finishing move. To make this satisfying, this should not be routine to do and requires both luck and timing. I don’t want to see players ‘do their own thing’ till the combat ends like many RPGs. Instead, I want to see them set up conditions and bonuses for other players to follow up. Some types of enemies should require even further neutralising of their defensive special abilities before such combos are even possible. I also want players to have decisions to perform Blocks and Perfect Blocks similar to the feel of the videogame.

Basic Combat

I initially was happy with players having attacks being quite basic based on their attacks like i

May 28, 2020 at 05:38AM:

http://twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1265985677600206850

via tweet-bot

• Losing political power
• Losing electricity
• Losing muscle mass (physical power)
• Losing energy as a microscopic cell. Out of energy means death.

Hi all. I want to make a modular MOC. For those of you who are into those, how do you go about conceptualising the plans? I’m going to have to buy a lot of brick and want to make those purchases as efficient as possible. I can’t get the Lego digital designer to work so anyone have any advice?

So I was thinking of an consequential operation that is a form of combination of restrictive practice and -ve punishment. The example that brought this to mind was a child being place in time-out within their cot, the consequence being intended as a punishment for acting out behaviour, but also blocking further acting out behaviour.

The blocking being the key difference between stock standard time-out.

Another example could be a staff member leaving a person's house if they are aggressive towards the staff. The leaving may act as a punisher, but also maintain safety for the staff.

Is there already a term, or I am I just over-analyzing a response? The reason I ask is I'm thinking of scenarios where punishment may be used ethically (i.e. if safety is an issue)

I've been recently trying to distinguish between critical approaches to power for the purposes of an essay entitled 'How, if at all, can critical approaches to power help us better understand political processes?'

The realist, pluralist and radical views of power (or the first, second and third faces of power) have been easy enough to grasp but I have had trouble coming to grips with assessing how Foucault's contributions to the concept of power fit into the mix.

His views seem similar to Lukes ideas of preference shaping but many writers seems reluctant to address how Foucault fits into the three faces of power, or indeed whether Foucault's conceptualisation lies outside the three faces altogether.

Help!

Ever since learning about the Mosuo from this sub I've been fascinated by how relationship practices such as marriage and how it's conceived can differ across cultures. How much variety is there? e.g. are there cultures (other than the Mosuo) that don't have marriage at all, or accept polygamy or polyamory, or different conceptions of parenthood and different child-rearing practices, heteronormativity etc. Also could you recommend any reading material on this subject, or that maybe looks at the genealogy of marriage or even monogamy itself, or parenthood, etc.? It's just a fascinating topic for me.

EDIT: Oh and by "unorthodox" I mean different to what we have today in the 21st century West.